Who want my Vote Obama or McCain?

USCIS Updates Projected Naturalization Processing Times

1.4 Million Legal residents had a long waiting time to become a U.S. Citizen; Some over a 1 year and months do to this tremendous backlog USCIS increase the price on fees and increased the length of processing time as well. I taught the technology will help them to advance in some bureaucratic areas but is totally opposite.

WASHINGTON – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today that it continues to make steady progress in reducing the significant number of naturalization applications it received last year. USCIS now anticipates naturalization application processing will average 10-12 months nationally by the end of September 2008 – a substantial improvement from its estimated average processing time of 16-18 months first announced last year.

“USCIS is committed to providing customers with clear expectations and regular updates about the agency’s progress to reduce its backlog,” Acting USCIS Director Jonathan Scharfen said. “We are working steadily toward achieving our goal of processing all naturalization applications within five months by this time next year.”

During Fiscal Year 2007, USCIS received 1.4 million naturalization applications, nearly double the normal annual volume. In July alone, USCIS received 460,000 applications for naturalization prior to the implementation of its July 30, 2007 fee increase. As a result, average processing times significantly increased.

In response to the surge in applications, USCIS implemented a work plan to reduce the backlog, including implementing an aggressive hiring plan and expanded work hours. As a result of this effort, USCIS anticipates completing more than one million naturalization applications by the end of this fiscal year, including most of the applications received during the summer of 2007.

Last year’s application surge did not impact USCIS offices evenly across the country. Although most offices have already processed cases received during the 2007 filing surge, a handful of offices will have a small percentage of their 2007 cases pending at the end of Fiscal Year 2008. That will result in processing times longer than the 10-12 month national average. USCIS will continue to shift resources to ensure that all local offices achieve the goal of five month processing times.

USCIS field office projections are listed below. These projections indicate the average time it will take to complete a naturalization case as of the end of September 2008.

Estimate of Local Office Naturalization Processing Times by September 2008


Office Months

Agana, Guam.......................... 5.0
Memphis, Tenn........................ 8.4
Albany, N.Y.......................... 5.6
Miami, Fla...........................12.0
Albuquerque, N.M..................... 8.4
Milwaukee, Wis........................6.6
Anchorage, Alaska.................... 5.0
Mount Laurel, N.J.................... 5.0
Atlanta, Ga.......................... 6.7
New Orleans, La..................... 14.5
Baltimore, Md........................ 7.0
New York, N.Y....................... 10.0
Boise, Idaho........................ 10.5
Newark, N.J...........................7.4
Boston, Mass..........................8.8
Norfolk, Va.......................... 7.2
Buffalo, N.Y......................... 7.0
Oklahoma City, Okla.................. 8.6
Charleston, S.C..................... 14.1
Omaha, Neb........................... 5.0
Charlotte Amalie, Virgin Islands..... 7.2
Orlando, Fla......................... 9.5
Charlotte, N.C...................... 14.9
Philadelphia, Pa.................... 10.0
Chicago, Ill......................... 5.1
Phoenix, Ariz........................ 8.6
Cincinnati, Ohio......................7.0
Pittsburgh, Pa........................6.0
Cleveland, Ohio.......................6.8
Portland, Maine...................... 5.5
Columbus, Ohio....................... 5.7
Portland, Ore........................ 5.4
Dallas, Texas........................11.0
Providence, R.I...................... 6.7
Denver, Colo......................... 5.2
Reno, Nev............................ 5.0
Des Moines, Iowa..................... 5.7
Sacramento, Calif.................... 5.0
Detroit, Mich........................ 5.0
Salt Lake City, Utah................. 5.0
El Paso, Texas....................... 7.9
San Antonio, Texas................... 5.0
Fort Smith, Ark...................... 7.6
San Diego, Calif......................5.0
Fresno, Calif........................ 6.7
San Francisco, Calif................. 5.5
Harlingen, Texas..................... 5.0
San Jose, Calif...................... 5.0
Hartford, Conn...................... 14.3
San Juan, Puerto Rico............... 10.4
Helena, Mont......................... 5.0
Seattle, Wash........................ 9.0
Honolulu, Hawaii..................... 5.0
Spokane, Wash........................ 5.0
Houston, Texas....................... 5.1
St Albans, Vt.........................9.5
Indianapolis, Ind.................... 5.0
St Louis, Mo.........................10.3
Jacksonville, Fla.....................7.4
St Paul, Minn.........................5.5
Kansas City, Mo.......................7.0
Tampa, Fla............................8.6
Las Vegas, Nev....................... 9.0
Tucson, Ariz.........................12.0
Los Angeles, Calif.................. 12.5
Washington, D.C..................... 12.7
Louisville, Ky....................... 7.1
West Palm Beach, Fla................. 5.0
Manchester, N.H...................... 5.3
Yakima, Wash......................... 5.0

This is what I called a Radical Behavior and Intolerance against the Immigrant.!!!!!!!!!!








France denies citizenship to veiled Muslim woman.

The case started quietly, when a Muslim woman who sheaths herself in a head-to-toe veil was denied French citizenship because she had not assimilated enough into this society. France's highest body upheld the decision, and politicians across the spectrum agreed it was the right move.


A few dissenting voices, though, are now questioning whether the decision pushed France's secularist values too far.

"Where does it begin or end? What we are calling radical behavior?" asked Mohammed Bechari, president of the National Federation of French Muslims. "Will we see a man refused citizenship because of the length of his beard ... or a man who is dressed as a rabbi, or a priest?"

On June 27, France's highest administrative body, the Council of State, ruled that the woman, identified only as Faiza X, had "adopted a radical practice of her religion incompatible with the essential values of the French community, notably with the principle of equality of the sexes, and therefore she does not fulfill the conditions of assimilation" listed in the country's Civil Code as a requirement for gaining French citizenship.

The council said the decision to refuse her citizenship did not aim to "attack (her) freedom of religion."

But critics accuse the French justice system of breeding fear and intolerance of Islam under the guise of upholding secularism. The country is home to western Europe's largest Muslim population, estimated to be at least 5 million of the nation's 63 million people - and growing.

French officialdom has struggled to instill secular traditions in Muslim immigrant communities, passing a law in 2004 barring the Islamic headscarf and other highly visible religious symbols from public schools. Proponents of that law welcomed the decision denying citizenship to Faiza X, who wears a niqab, or full-body veil, to her meetings with immigration officials.

"The burqa, it's a prison, a straitjacket," France's minister for urban affairs, Fadela Amara, herself born to Algerian parents, was quoted as saying.

The terms burqa and niqab are often used interchangeably in France, though the former refers to a full-body covering worn largely in Afghanistan with only a mesh screen over the eyes. An official state document said the woman wore a full-body niqab, which left her eyes uncovered.

"It is not a religious sign but the visible sign of a totalitarian political project preaching inequality between the sexes, and which carries within it the total absence of democracy," Amara was quoted as saying in the daily Le Parisien.

Amara told the paper she hoped extremists would get a strong message from the Council of State's ruling, which upheld immigration officials' refusal to grant citizenship to Faiza X.

The council's ruling did not refer to Faiza's niqab, which she said she adopted after arriving in France from her native Morocco, according to a report from a government commissioner to the Council.

The woman told immigration officials that she did not know anything about secularism or her right to vote, according to the commissioner's report. All the immigration officials handling her case were women. They asked her to remove her veil to identify herself, which she did only when no men were in the room, the report said.

Later, in a letter to immigration officials, the woman defended her lifestyle by noting that other immigrants granted French citizenship also maintain "ties with their culture of origin."

The woman and her husband told immigration officials that they adhere to Salafism, a strict strain of Islam.

Her statements to immigration officials indicate that "she leads a life almost of a recluse, cut off from French society," leaving the house only to walk with her children or visit relatives, the report said.

"She lives in total submission to the men in her family ... and the idea of contesting this submission doesn't even occur to her," the government report said.

Politicians on talk shows this week spoke out in support of the ruling. But Muslim groups had mixed reactions.

Mohammed Moussaoui, head of the moderate French Council for Muslim Communities, issued a cautious statement that did not come out strongly for or against the ruling. He said only that his group "rejects all forms of extremism and stigmas that would keep the Muslim component of the nation's society from living its spirituality in peace."

But Fouad Alaoui, vice president of the Union of Islamic Organizations of France, said, "It's a turning point in our judiciary that should make us think.

"I don't think that clothing is part of this country's values. Clothing is personal freedom."
Then he added, "On a personal level, I too am disturbed when I see a woman hide her face.

The Melca Salvador History facing deportation in Canada.

Let's Welcome those new U.S. Citizens. Record setting of 18,000 new Citizens in L.A. Including el Piolin Sotelo.




Eddie "Piolín" Sotelo, the popular Spanish-language disc-jockey who helped catapult half a million people to the streets over immigration reform, took his oath Thursday as a new citizen of the United States in a record-setting naturalization ceremony in Los Angeles.

Sotelo, who spent his teen years in Santa Ana after crossing the border from Mexico, was sworn in with about 6,000 other immigrants at the Los Angeles Convention Center – many who hugged him, asked for his autograph and snapped his photo with their cell phones after the ceremony.

The 37-year old radio host has become a figure for hundreds of thousands of Latino immigrants after he helped organize a massive march in defense of immigrants’ rights two years ago. Since then, he has been encouraging immigrants to become citizens on his nationally syndicated radio show, contributing to the unprecedented surge in naturalizations this year.

Sotelo said his personal experiences as an illegal immigrant teen smuggled across the border from Mexico in the trunk of a car, collecting cans in Santa Ana to make money off recycling to help his parents and staving off deportation by landing a work permit at the very last moment – all flashed through his mind during the 25-minute ceremony.

"It is a blessing to be with so many people who are becoming citizens today and from so many countries," said a beaming Sotelo, who was trailed by two dozen photographers and reporters. "This is what we need in the country, this unity, this unity that you see here,"

It was one of three ceremonies held at the Convention Center Thursday to welcome more than 18,000 new citizens from 100 countries, making it the biggest day yet for naturalizations in Los Angeles, said Sharon Rummery, spokeswoman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Other celebrities have naturalized in Los Angeles in recent years, though some ask to take their oath unnoticed, like South African-born Charlize Theron, Rummery said.

For many Latino immigrants, Sotelo’s decision to become a U.S. citizen was especially meaningful after they’ve listened to him encouraging immigrants to naturalize on his show, which reaches more than five million listeners each day, said Univision spokeswoman Georgia Carrera. The early morning show, which carries his nickname of "Tweety Bird" in Spanish, touches on immigration, community concerns, sports and entertainment with Mexican music and jokes woven in between.

"It gives us even more courage. He’s always helping people and he unites us," said Rosa Maria Gonzalez, 55, of Anaheim, a new citizen who said she listens to his show daily

Jorge-Mario Cabrera, spokesman for the National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities, said Sotelo has sent a strong message to his listeners of the contributions they can make to society and the success they can achieve – both through his words and his example.

Victor Rodriguez, professor of Chicano & Latino Studies at Cal State Long Beach, said Sotelo’s decision to naturalize and share the occasion with the public will resonate with listeners, particularly those who cherish their cultural identity and heritage and feel equally tied to, and part of, the United States.

"He has been such a visible leader for immigration reform," Rodriguez said. "He is also challenging this idea that people don’t want to become integrated into American society, that they’re sojourners. I think this is the best kind of countermeasure."

Sotelo, who has been sharing tidbits of his experiences in the citizenship process on the air in recent weeks, said he hopes it will send a message to Latino immigrants about the importance of learning English and becoming citizens – if they are eligible -- so they can vote and fully participate in civic life. He also hopes it will show non-immigrants how much he and other new citizens care about the country amid an often fractious debate over immigration.

"I’m an American citizen, and when you become a U.S. citizen, you have to make sure you’re going to protect your home," he said. "And this is my home

House members grill ICE over Guzman case.



WASHINGTON - Federal immigration officials tried to convince a House immigration subcommittee Wednesday that last year's deportation of a mentally disabled American citizen was an accident, not evidence of widespread flaws in the agency's policies and procedures.

Lawyers and advocates suggested otherwise.

At the heart of Wednesday's hearing is the case involving Pedro Guzman, a 30-year-old California native who U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials removed from the country and sent to Tijuana, Mexico, in May, 2006.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, who chairs the panel, said she hoped the hearing "will reveal where problems lie and lead us to solutions."

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, asked Gary E. Mead, deputy director of the Office of Detention and Removal Operations at ICE, about the likelihood that Guzman was not the only U.S. citizen illegally removed from the country last year.

Mead said that about 310,000 people passed through the agency's 400 detention centers last year and that roughly 280,000 were deported. When asked how many deportations involved American citizens, Mead said, "To the best of my knowledge, only one U.S. citizen was removed."

Regardless, he said the agency is "reviewing its policies and procedures to determine if even greater safeguards can be put in place to prevent the rare instance where this event occurs." He said the agency anticipates having this review completed within the next 90 days.

Other testimony challenged how effective the agency's existing safeguards are in preventing unfair treatment of detainees and illegal removals of U.S. citizens.

Safeguards to detect mental or emotional impairments among detainees were not mentioned in Mead's written or oral testimony, nor was he specifically asked about such guidelines by committee members. But witnesses from human rights groups and lawyers testified that they believe the lack of such screens could be among the reasons that Guzman was removed.

Rachel Rosenbloom, a lawyer with the Center for Human Rights and International Justice at Boston College, said in her written testimony that no such safeguards exist.

Guzman was sent to Mexico after he signed a document accepting voluntary removal, a process by which Undocumented immigrants can leave the country voluntarily instead of being deported. Immigrants sometimes choose the option to make re-entry to the U.S. easier. The Department of Homeland Security reported that 965,000 people accepted an offer of voluntary departure in 2005.

Guzman can neither read nor write beyond a second grade level according testimony from his lawyer, James J. Brosnahan. He said that may have been the reason he signed the request for voluntary removal in which he claimed Mexican nationality. Rosenbloom testified that the Sheriff's department administrator who obtained his signature "checked a box indicating that Mr. Guzman had read the statement himself, in Spanish."

Mead testified that Guzman "claimed" he was a Mexican national but he did not specify how Guzman made that claim.

When King asked if there is any way cases like Guzman's could be a pattern, Mead said, "We don't think so, Mr. Congressman."

Rosenbloom said that mistakes like those that led to Guzman's removal are "inevitable" under U.S. deportation laws.

Chief among her concerns was the fact that a person threatened with removal has no right to government-appointed council.

Mead did not directly challenge Rosenbloom's claim, but he did say that detainees are offered phone numbers for free legal aid and embassies as well as access to free phones. Such access to phones and legal aid were not mentioned in his written testimony.
In her testimony, Rosenbloom said that no family or attorney was present during Guzman's proceedings

Not optimistic predictions for Residents Immigrants who wants to become American Citizens. An increased fee and a backlog to about three years. Why Goverment did'nt allocated any money to expedited this process?

WASHINGTON - President Bush is asking Congress to spend money to help businesses root out illegal workers but he did not request additional funds to help legal immigrants become American citizens more quickly.

In his budget proposal issued this week, Bush asked for $100 million to expand E-Verify, the system employers use to check whether they are hiring documented workers. He didn't ask Congress to allocate money to chip away at millions of citizenship and other immigration applications that flooded the government last summer, before an increase in the agency's filing fees.

Instead, Citizenship and Immigration Services will rely on $468 million in fees to pay for reducing the backlog by 2010. Those funds are a portion of the total fees that came in with the applications this summer.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the summer's fee increases will give the agency the money it needs to get back on track.

"People always argue well you ought to fund this, you ought to fund that. That's great, but the pie is only as big as it is and no one ever comes up with this slice they want to give back in return for this," Chertoff said.

A total 7.7 million applications for various immigration benefits poured into Citizenship and Immigration Services in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2007. That's 1.4 million more than the previous fiscal year.

"The backlogs are pretty much back where they were when they started and the agency is back to doing what it used to do, which is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Right now they are taking resources from permanent residence to do citizenship," said Crystal Williams, associate director for programs at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
The immigration agency increased fees in July largely to raise about $1.5 billion to pay for modernizing computer equipment, hiring and training more workers, improving field offices and other spending.

Becoming a citizen now costs $595, up from $330. The price to get a green card is $1,010, up from $395. Applicants for both pay another $80 each for digital fingerprinting, a $10 increase.
Congress gave the immigration agency $100 million a year over five years through 2006 to reduce the immigration backlogs.

Agency Director Emilio Gonzalez announced in September 2006 the backlog had fallen to about 139,0000 cases. About 1 million applications in the backlog that were incomplete, from people still awaiting visas or whose FBI name check was delayed, were not counted.

The administration deserves credit for securing the $500 million from Congress for the backlog, said Doris Meissner, former Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner under President Clinton.

"They broke through the idea that this should just be purely financed by the applicant fees themselves," said Meissner, a senior fellow with Migration Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. "But it was finite."

Since 1988, the work of Citizenship and Immigration Services and its predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, has been largely paid for by revenue from application fees. Congress has provided money for specific projects over the years, but generally those have been limited to a few years. Sometimes fee money has been diverted for things like detention centers.

The result has been an agency constantly shifting resources to respond to the latest crisis, critics say.
"Every time the system breaks down, they are incentivizing people to say, 'Screw the system, I'll just overstay my visa.'" said James Jay Carifano, a research fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank.

Immigration officials say they will be able to chip away at the backlogs as 1,500 new workers are hired and trained. Things should be back where they were before the application spike by 2010, the agency's spokeswoman Chris Rhatigan said.
Williams thinks that's an optimistic prediction. The 7.7 million applications the agency received last year amount to about three years of work, she said.

Citizenship in sight, but then she voted before the residency was granted. What a terrible and innocent mistake. She was charged with breaking the Law.

Immigrant says registering, then casting ballot were innocent errors, not reason for deportation.

Beth Keathley was so close to becoming a permanent U.S. resident that she could already feel its benefits showering over her: a Social Security number, a cheery new house in central Illinois, an official state identification card. Citizenship would not be far behind.

On the day the Filipino immigrant took part in her first U.S. election last year, she proudly sported an "I voted" lapel pin on her uniform when she showed up for her cleaning shift at a hospital.

But Keathley, who has lived in the U.S. on a marriage visa since 2003, was not a citizen when she voted. When she told an immigration officer about it, she was charged with breaking the law. She lost her job.

It could derail her citizenship, and unless a judge rules in her favor, she could eventually be deported -- uprooting a family that includes her 9-month-old daughter, Sheina.

Keathley's alleged crime -- one that trips up hundreds of immigrants each year -- took place at the secretary of state's facility in Bloomington, where a clerk invited her to register to vote as part of the "motor voter" program.

Immigration laws prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote.

But Keathley said the clerk saw her Filipino passport as part of the application for the state identification card. She figured that if a state employee offered her the opportunity to register, it must be all right.

The state says its employees are prohibited by federal law from seeking confirmation of citizenship before registering people to vote.

And federal officials say the question on the registration form that asks applicants to affirm they are citizens is clear enough. Intentional voter fraud is a real problem, they say, and they have to enforce the laws.

There are no records kept to accurately reflect the size of the problem. But immigration attorneys around the country have seen a steady increase in recent years of deportation cases and declined citizenship due to illegal voting, said Carlina Tapia-Ruano, a Chicago attorney who is the immediate past president of the Washington-based American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Before the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also known as the "motor voter" law, registration took place before a sworn elections official, usually inside a local election board office or voting precinct -- places hard to find for even native-born citizens.

Easier to register

Today, in addition to voter registration materials being available at driver's license facilities and other public agencies, "you can literally be registered while walking down the street," Tapia-Ruano said, referring to volunteers with clipboards full of mail-in forms meant to boost voter turnout.

"You didn't see these cases as much before because it was harder; people had to take more steps," she said. "Now it's easier to register to vote. But the downside is people are getting innocently trapped in this situation."

By the time a flood of political pamphlets came in the mail last year, Keathley was settling into her new life in Bloomington.

It was a far cry from the mostly rural Philippine island of Mindanao, where she worked as a machine operator for a microchip maker that paid her the equivalent of $4 a day. Her impressions of America came from urban television dramas.

"I said: 'Oh, I thought there were no trees in America,'" Keathley recalled, after arriving in Bloomington with her husband, John. "And the snow. It caught me by surprise."

Before long, Keathley was handling the household bills and shopping for a new house with her husband, a customer service agent at a home improvement store. Keathley was issued a work permit and found a $9-an-hour cleaning job at a hospital.

Then she went to get her ID card and ended up registering to vote. The form shows she checked a box indicating she was a citizen; she said she does not remember doing it.

Under a federal anti-discrimination law, state workers aren't allowed to confirm an applicant's citizenship before processing a voter registration form, said Beth Kaufman, spokeswoman for the secretary of state's office.
Our job is to ask whether you want to register to vote, and if the person says 'yes,' we give them a sheet to sign from the board of elections that says: 'Are you a citizen of the United States?' and you check that box 'yes' or 'no' and you sign it," Kaufman said. "We are not allowed to ask anything else."
Some immigrants, confused, leave the question unanswered and still receive voter registration cards, Tapia-Ruano said.

Others knowingly engage in voter fraud, in some cases participating in multiple elections, said Marilu Cabrera, a Chicago spokeswoman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

"It's very important to understand that if you have a green card, you are not eligible to vote," Cabrera said, adding that her agency comes across such problems after every election and reviews them on a case-by-case basis. "More often than not, we'll deny the [citizenship] case, but they're not put into [deportation] proceedings. If someone shows a clear intent to lie and commit fraud, then, absolutely, they'll be put into proceedings."

The Keathleys' attorney, Richard Hanus, contends that federal immigration law doesn't consider the possibility that such actions are done by mistake. He hopes to convince a judge that Keathley is of good moral character.

"We're talking about a family unit with a child and a woman with no previous criminal behavior whatsoever who has followed immigration laws to the T," Hanus said. "What took place is, at worst, an innocent mistake and not an act that was done in any malicious way."

Her pin said, 'I voted'

Keathley said she got the first hint of trouble at work.

In her sixth month of pregnancy, Keathley arrived at the hospital after voting. A co-worker, also from the Philippines, who knew of her immigrant status noticed Keathley's "I voted" pin and said: "Oh, Beth, you're in trouble now."

Keathley rushed home that night to inform her husband. Both shrugged off their doubts and prepared for her citizenship interview.

Inside a federal immigration office in Chicago, Keathley said, a government official chuckled in disbelief when she said she had voted. The official ended the interview.

Keathley cried during most of the three-hour trip home, she said.

Immigration authorities will not comment on the specifics of Keathley's case.

It will be reviewed by a federal judge next year. While in legal limbo, Keathley has been forced to quit working and lost her medical insurance.

She and her husband are weighing what they will do if she is deported. Besides Sheina, her husband's daughter from a previous marriage, Veronica, 11, is in the picture.

Her husband said the experience has hardened his views on immigration, making him resent on how dysfunctional the systems is..

"Here we jumped through all the hoops ... and we get slammed," he said. "We've done everything the right way."

Keathley lies awake at night filled with remorse.

"I think about how this affects us financially and how we have a baby. I'm losing my job, and we don't have enough to eat," she confided, during a moment when her husband was out of the room. "John says, 'Just don't think about it.'

"I don't know. I want this life